ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article

227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.01.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.905 of 2022 in O.S.No.239 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, filed under Order XIV Rule 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to dispose of the suit on the following two Additional Issues :-

1. Whether the person who represented as Secretary and Trustee on behalf of the plaintiff’s Trust Board has got locus standi to file the suit ?

2. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit, as preliminary issues ?

2. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for several reliefs in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant contended that the suit is not maintainable by the Trust being represented by the Secretary and filed I.A.No.905 of 2022. It is further more contended that there is no plaintiff’s Trust Board as such in existence, stating that there was no quorum of the executive members. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant contended that the additional issues need to be first adjudicated, so that there need not be trial of the entire suit.

3. The petition was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter and denying the averments in the petition and also stating that the trust board of the plaintiff resolved to appoint J.S.Reddy as a Secretary for a period of three years from 16.04.2022 to 15.04.2025 and that this petition was filed with a delay of seven years after filing the suit just to drag on the matter and also that the provision under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC is not applicable to the present case.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the issues in respect of the jurisdiction of a Court or a bar to the suit created by law can be decided as preliminary issue and thus, so far as the first additional issue regarding the maintainability of the suit by the Trust being represented by the Secretary is concerned, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the trial Court observed that it relates to jurisdiction and the same can be decided by way of preliminary issue. Accordingly, it decided the second issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:-

“Petition averments does not reveal on which base/basing on which averments or fact or law the petitioner is contending that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Perused written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant and at para 13 last three lines it is averred that as per the valuations of this suit, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit relief reveals that the suit is filed for declaration, possession and for damages etc., which is nothing but vesting any property in a trust. The defendant is registered society and plaintiff is trust and thereby the reason assigned by the petitioner for his contention that this District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is incorrect, in view of Section 92 CPC and as A.P. Societies Registration Act, and thereby additional issue No.2 is settled against the petitioner, and consequently I.A. is dismissed without costs.”

5. However, it is erroneously dismissed the whole petition instead of allowing partly in respect of the second additional issue.

6. Since the petition was dismissed, the petitioner/defendant preferred the revision petition on the same grounds as stated before the trial Court and further emphasizing that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of section 92 of CPC.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that as per Section 92 CPC, a third party can file a suit against the Trust Board, but a Secretary of the Trust cannot file the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the leave as required under Section 92 CPC was granted by the Court at the time of filing of the suit and without challenging the said order, filing